Abstract
The report discusses the reasons against prison privatization to indicate the harmful effects of the institutions on the US criminal justice and correctional systems. According to the research, prison privatization has negatively impacted the US penal systems based on the cons attached to the functionality of such firms in the security department. The research findings argued that the high costs of management, corruption, limited training opportunities, exploitation of workers, turnover of workers, lack of MIS support systems, system dependency, lack of transparency, and selfishness of owners to earn more profits affect the adoption of private prisons in the US. However, the report also acknowledges the future implications of changes and reinforcement in public prisons. According to the piece, reducing the prison population, employment offers, and lower rehabilitation costs for taxpayers include the benefits of private prisons. The paper defends the negativity of privatization in the US because such adoptions affect the welfare of inmates and the community.
Introduction
Private companies owning prisons in the US have the ambition of overtaking the criminal justice system from public correctional institutions. The government works with private agencies to make inmates comfortable within prisons. According to Burkhardt (2018), the pros of the privatization of prisons complicate the choices of Americans to abandon or adopt the current security management policies. Management challenges linked to private prisons promotes criminal justice programmers from convincing the public of the benefits of privatization. Reviewing the pros and cons of private prisons expose readers to understanding the positions of the community on the issue. The use of prison privatization has been a negative to the US correctional and criminal justice systems considering the current academic peer-reviewed literature and application of the reinforcement in the professional setting.
Discussions of Current Academic Peer-Reviewed Literature on Privatization of Prisons
Exploits Employees
Private prisons exploit employees because the facilities admit many inmates widening the ratio of employees to imprisoners population. The guards and subordinate staff in for-profit prisons are overburdened with the growing population in the correctional industry. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP), private prison hosts 25% of inmates hosted in the US (Cliquennois, 2022). The population depends on a small staff to monitor the movement of jailed individuals. Occupational stress is among the leading consequences of employee exploitation in the criminal justice system. Perez and Salter (2019) suggest that workers in the private sector experience workplace depression based on low rewards. For instance, cooks take long hours preparing meals for thousands of arrested individuals with small payments because the privatization of prisons focuses on the profit margins of the companies rather than the welfare of workers.
Workplace satisfaction is a significant concern in environments where employees issue feedback on the poor-working settings. Page and Soss (2021) shortlist trauma as a derailing element in private prison workspaces; the study shows that the low pay in private prisons demotivates workers from being transparent and loyal to their employers. The under-treatment of workers in private prisons negatively influences the US correction systems. The lack of motivation to work arises from the exploitation of employees by their bosses.
Higher Management Costs
Privatization of prisons in the US should be banned because the approach has no obligation to the community. Running and maintaining the facilities is very expensive, leading the owners of the for-profit organizations to exploit the public. Top prison officials use their positions to wrongfully acquire resources from the public to sponsor correctional activities in private prisons. Inmates suffer at the expense of investors with huge targets to meet every business period. As a result, Harper et al. (2021) respond that the intentions of privatizing prisons in the US taint the images of the US criminal justice system negatively. The tight security requirements in standard private prisons are demanding and expensive to install. For instance, surveillance vehicles, CCTVs, police dogs, cells, food, staff, uniforms, training programs, medical facilities, rehabilitation services, and hygiene cost private prison owners a lot of money. Harper et al. (2021) elaborate that the high-end spending in private prisons does not limit crime rates in the US. Further, the writer suggests that the resources spent building and sponsoring privatization should be converted into other valuable activities that improve people’s welfare.
Lacks Management Information System (MIS) Support
Private prisons harm the US criminal justice system because it lacks a functional management information system. MIS is a critical program that processes and interprets extensive data from multiple sources to improve informed decision-making (Scott et al., 2021). The private prisons lack appropriate MIS support systems because the firms concentrate on maximizing benefits from the government. The criminal justice system in the country gains negative imaging from the public based on the choices of private prisons to increase incarceration rates to earn profits (Latessa & Lovins, 2019). Juveniles are the primary audience hit by the illegal legislation and enforcement of law wrongfully with intentions of widening profit margins.
The communities bordering private prisons do not understand how such firms operate. However, Gunderson (2022) educate the public on the essence of management information systems in developing detailed reports regarding inmates and prisons. The limited application of MIS in private organizations pictures correctional facilities as non-compliance organizations in the security industry. The missing files and information about inmates in private prisons explain the increased rates of escapes in such places. Therefore, the inability of private prisons to install management information systems makes them less valuable and negatively impacts the correction systems.
Higher Rates of Assault on Staff and Inmates
Privatization of prisons in the US taints the nation’s criminal justice systems following the significant rise in assault among staff and inmates. The over-dependence of the government on private entities exposes employees and inmates to increased physical, emotional, and psychological torture. For instance, inmates from wealthy families acquire training programs and facilities, while low-income families are denied such access as they are thrown into public prisons. In other words, private prisons torment people of color because they are the primary target audience. The rise in the number of Black prisoners in private prisons in America worries the public about the future generation. US private prisons host 5% of inmates in the country, and the value is relatively low compared to the population covered by public prisons (Rose et al., 2021). However, 30% of inmates in such facilities are Black Americans and Latins, meaning the dungeons are intended to bully minority groups silently without public awareness (Rudes et al., 2020). Criminalizing people based on race, nationality, religion, and age distances Americans from supporting the privatization of prisons.
Employers in private prisons assault their staff when profit targets are not achieved. At the same time, the firms expose jailed individuals to torture, those results in physical assault. The cruel punishments witnessed in private prisons negatively impact the portfolio of correctional facilities. Rape is also a severe issue among inmates in private prisons based on the surging population in such facilities. The assaults affect not only inmates but also staff that are exposed to toxic environments.
Discriminative and Selective
Private prisons should be banned in the US because the systems promote discrimination among people of color (POC). The US correction facilities target POC based on the increase in inmates in such facilities. 60% of private prisons consist of African Americans and Latin people, while the total population of such individuals in the country adds up to 30% (Page & Soss, 2021). In other words, Rose et al. (2021) dismiss the privatization of correctional facilities because the systems criminalize people of color and support native Americans from convictions. The war against drugs in America was introduced to battle the POC through private companies registered as prisons. Rose et al. (2021) comment that more than 3 million people are incarcerated in US private prisons over drug-related crimes, and most of the population are Black. Therefore, the lack of inclusivity in fighting criminal activities within private prisons makes the systems a liability to minority groups.
Setting private prisons in specific regions within the US promotes exclusive developments in the criminal justice system. The lack of equity and equality in service delivery for the people uniformly threatens the future of private prisons. If the premises benefit the public, they should be set in accessible social environments to allow communities to interact and benefit from their installation. However, the selfishness of private prison owners in showing the world what happens within such rehabilitation centers complicates the adoption of private firms in the security industry. The criminal justice program quarterly report of 2019 stressed that the security safety that drives many inmates into private prisons is not achievable with the current standards of correctional facilities (Meško & Hacin, 2019). Instead, the areas are business points where imprisoners’ welfare is violated and misappropriated for financial benefits.
Discussion of Current Application in the Professional Setting on Privatization of Prisons
The Prisons Influences Inappropriate Legislation
Adopting private prisons in the US promotes inappropriate legislation in the US correctional system and professional settings. Company-owned jails prioritize business over corrective service provision to the community and people. As a result, Shelby (2022) echoes that for-profit prisons should be abolished in the US because such correctional facilities concentrate on profit-making rather than quality in submitting criminal justice. The legislative bodies change how the law is implemented in private prisons to suit the needs of a millionaire who has invested in the business (Perez & Salter, 2019). Therefore, the types of jails influence the standardization of ethics and rules in law enforcement within such settings.
Private prisons contribute negative energies to the US criminal justice system because it incorporates extended standards of sentencing guidelines in increasing profit margins to owners. In addition, Gunderson (2022) suggested that the privatization of prisons can contribute to the lobbying of prosecutors to charge individuals with higher-level crimes instead of the petty cases that took them to such facilities. Longer sentences can be limited with higher bail rates that maximize business growth for companies and investors in the private sector.
Less Transparency
Prison privatization has facilitated the development of less transparency and accountability in the US criminal justice system and other professional settings. The lack of transparency in for-profit prisons makes such companies liable to the public and correctional systems. The debates for and against private prisons began with the need to improve prisoners’ lifestyles. However, companies owning private jails are leaning toward lowering congestion and improving the welfare of inmates to con the community. Private prisons do not focus on the ethical treatment of inmates during their stay in such facilities. Instead, investors take advantage of the secret flow of activities in such places to exploit families whose members are locked in for-profit prisons. Private confinements have the right to eliminate governmental inspection of operations since such entities operate in different jurisdictions (Latessa & Lovins, 2019). The default accountability witnessed in private prisons makes the facilities a negative input to the US criminal justice system.
Private Prisons Create Systems of Dependency
Private prisons enjoy a “monopoly” over public jails and outsource services from the facilities in the professional setting. The US criminal justice system struggles to meet its legal obligations to the public based on the negativity of private prisons in creating dependency on particular services. The government adopts the policy and culture of transferring public inmates to private jails to lower congestion and strikes. However, the outcomes of such moves leave the corrective systems with a gap in permanent solutions to overpopulation. Sending inmates to private prisons does not limit the occurrence of offenses in the community.
Moreover, the privatization of prisons does not guarantee the satisfaction of inmates’ needs in the professional setting. In Gunderson’s (2022) opinion, private sectors should be eliminated in the US criminal justice and corrective systems because they create an unfavorable dependency that transits into corruption. Currently, companies monitoring the operations of private prisons sympathize with the institutions because the facilities support the government in reducing overpopulation in public prisons (Cliquennois, 2022). Prisons with major facilities enjoy higher bids from the government while smaller private entities search for their way into the competitive safety service operations in the correctional systems. The lack of formal negotiations private prison industry initiates dependency on the facilities by the government, creating harmful efforts for the criminal justice system.
Limits Training Opportunities
Increasing the profit margins in private prisons causes managers to lower operational costs in the professional setting by eliminating training and development programs. The approach by the private firms does not meet the long-term goal of rehabilitation and development of wrongdoers into productive individuals (Perez & Salter, 2019). The US correctional officers within private prisons have lesser interest in training inmates based on the lack of inspiration from their bosses. Privatization of prisons distances criminals from pursuing short courses and expressing their talents in various fields due to limited resources. The urge to earn more money from the government makes private prisons invest in safety facilities and social amenities at the expense of training programs.
Private jails, unlike public ones, focus on the flow of money into the facilities; the firms do not prioritize the well-being of the inmates and their lives after prison. According to Shelby (2022), private correctional facilities punish inmates harshly to restrain them from committing similar acts that send them to jail. However, public prisons invest in inmates’ knowledge, skills, and talents to generate finances to run the population. Therefore, the privatization of prisons prevents the growth of individuals through training and development. The negative image of the firms originates from the selfish intentions of earning more money than changing people’s lives.
High Turnover Rates
The Federal Bureau of Prisons’ recent report on employment rates in private jails exposes the adverse effects of the implementation in the criminal justice and correctional systems. An interview with correctional officers in the New York Times newspaper indicated that 60% of new workers in the penal and security departments quit their jobs within the first 36 months of practice and service (Meško & Hacin, 2019). The increment in employee turnover in private prisons showcases the negativity of the program to the community and the criminal justice system. Understaffing correctional facilities increases the rates of crimes within private jails (Zoorob, 2022). Therefore, the privatization debates should end because the job descriptions of such officers are stressed. In addition, the increased criminal injustices to people of color and low-income families persist due to the imbalance of staff to imprisoners ratio initiated by job dissatisfaction and stress.
The increased turnover rates communicate the consequences of adopting private prisons in the US criminal justice system. Three out of five new employees quit correctional policing in the early years of employment in search of better offers from other departments (Perez & Salter, 2019). In other words, the US criminal justice system will continuously sink into negativity if they support the privatization of prisons because such facilities are unconducive for employees.
Private Prisons Promote Corruption
Private prisons have been consistently accused of mishandling resources in the past two decades in the professional setting. Judges, prosecutors, and other law enforcers in the private business have accepted millions of dollars in exchange for sentencing (Shelby, 2022). Although corruption is a big problem in the US criminal justice system, the Supreme Court summons fewer public prison prosecutors than the private sector. The for-profit prisons encourage the exchange of money for favors in transferring inmates and releasing imprisoners without appropriate laws. The limited resources for women in private prisons have promoted corruption in US private prisons where correctional officers isolate women in such facilities for exchange of sex and money. Unusual punishment of juveniles in private prisons escalated across multiple media in 2008, alerting the public to the dangers of prison privatization (Zoorob, 2022). Holding children with petty cases for prolonged periods promote profits in private correctional facilities.
The government protected one of the owners of a private prison in the US who bribed judges to pass long sentencing to children to extend their stay in the facility. The intentions of the extended stay at the private facility targeted the profitability of the firm at the expense of justice. In short, the privatization of prisons should end in the US because it promotes corruption in correctional facilities.
Future Implications
Private prisons should be abandoned in the US criminal and correctional systems in the future based on their operational weaknesses. Even though privatization promotes corruption and accumulates a lot of resources to run, rehabilitation facilities will impact the community positively if implemented. Firstly, adopting private prisons in the US criminal justice lowers rehabilitation costs because such firms work towards maintaining taxpayer expenses. In contrast, public prisons can leverage the size of rehabilitation and training centers for inmates to promote less spending across the multiple prisons across the country. For-profit prisons will allow the security industry to maintain expenses of taxpayers’ money by implementing better processes and responsible management. Secondly, the privatization of prisons will create employment opportunities for citizens. Closing such premises would result in joblessness among correctional officers, cooks, guards, and administrators (Page & Soss, 2021). The service industry jobs developed by installing private prisons will support families and communities economically. The US government generates over $80 billion from private prison systems to support the nation and the people in running state affairs (Zoorob, 2022). As a result, the practice will contribute positively to the economy’s growth.
Thirdly, the benefits of private prisons in reducing overpopulation in public correctional institutions make it a good idea for the future of America. According to Page and Soss (2021), the mission of privatization in the US criminal justice system is to reduce population ratios of inmates at the state, national, and provincial levels. Many public prisons in California were above total capacity as of 2017, with the number of jailed individuals outnumbering the existing beds (Meško & Hacin, 2019). The understaffed public prisons in the future US will complicate the control of the growing population in such institutions. However, entering private prisons into the country lowers management challenges within correctional facilities. Therefore, the agenda of promoting privatization is terrible, but it can be productive because it promotes the safety of inmates.
Conclusion
In summary, the academic peer-reviewed literature and application of the topic in the professional settings concluded that privatizing prisons promotes negative energy in the US correctional and criminal justice systems. Private prisons should be excluded in America because the institutions are expensive to manage, encourage corruption, limit training opportunities, exploit employees, and require higher maintenance costs. Moreover, such prisons should be abandoned in the US because they influence inappropriate legislation, lack MIS support, create dependency systems, and lack transparency in the criminal justice system.
References
Burkhardt, B. C. (2018). Does the public sector respond to private competition? An analysis of privatization and prison performance. Journal of Crime and Justice, 42(2), 201–220. Web.
Cliquennois, G. (2022). The evolving protection of prisoners’ rights in Europe. Routledge.
Gunderson, A. (2022). Inmate litigation, legal access, and prison privatization. Journal of Law and Courts, 3(1), 1–21. Web.
Harper, A., Ginapp, C., Bardelli, T., Grimshaw, A., Justen, M., Mohamedali, A., Thomas, I., & Puglisi, L. (2020). Debt, incarceration, and re-entry: A scoping review. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 46(2), 250–278. Web.
Latessa, E. J., & Lovins, L. B. (2019). Privatization of community corrections. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(2), 323–341. Web.
Meško, G., & Hacin, R. (2019). The social distance between prisoners and prison staff. The Prison Journal, 99(6), 706–724. Web.
Page, J., & Soss, J. (2021). The predatory dimensions of criminal justice. Science, 374(6565), 291–294. Web.
Perez, M. J., & Salter, P. S. (2019). Trust, innocence, and individual responsibility: Neoliberal dreams of a colorblind peace. Journal of Social Issues, 75(1), 267–285. Web.
Rose, J. C. C., MacManus, C., Macdonald, J. M., & Parry-Cruwys, D. (2021). Mitigating racial inequity by addressing racism in the criminal justice system: A behavior analytic approach (pp. 137–157). Center for Open Science. Web.
Rudes, D. S., Magnuson, S., Portillo, S., & Hattery, A. (2020). Sex logics: Negotiating the prison rape elimination act (PREA) against its’ administrative, safety, and cultural burdens. Punishment & Society, 23(2), 241–259. Web.
Scott, C. K., Dennis, M. L., Grella, C. E., & Watson, D. P. (2021). Improving retention across the OUD service cascade upon re-entry from jail using Recovery Management Checkups-Adaptive (RMC-A) experiment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 128(17), 108–245. Web.
Shelby, T. (2022). The idea of prison abolition. Princeton University Press.
Zoorob, M. J. (2022). Privatization and Quality of Carceral Healthcare: A difference-in-differences Analysis of Jails in the United States, 2008-2019. International Journal of Public Administration, 3(1), 1–12. Web.